Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Sharma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2026
1 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 31st OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4334 of 2013
MANISH SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishikesh Bohare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.S. Tomar - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(1) That, impugned orders dated 28-07-12, 12-10-11 and 24-12-10
(contained in Ann. P/1, P/2 & P/3) may kindly be quashed/set-aside.
(2) That, respondents’ authorities may kindly be directed to pay the
petitioner, arrears of salary for the period of suspension i.e. 03-06-
2010 to 11-08-2010 and also to grant benefit of increment and salary
which is withheld by the impugned order dated 24-12-10 (contained in
Ann.P/3).
(3) That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
2 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
interest of justice. Cost of the petition may kindly be granted to the
petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point of
time, petitioner was posted as Constable in the Department of Police at District
Guna. Initially, in Guna-Bhaskar daily news paper dated 03.06.2010, a
photograph with short news has been published, whereby it is shown that a
Constable is receiving something from a person sitting in Truck overloaded
with dry grass and permitting said truck to enter into no-entry Zone. Thereafter,
S.P., Guna suspended the petitioner vide order dated 03.06.2010 and
preliminary enquiry has been conducted and thereafter, S.P., Guna issued
charge-sheet dated 29.06.2010 against the petitioner and petitioner submitted
reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer has been appointed and
statements of witnesses have been recorded and the Inquiry Officer completed
the enquiry. Thereafter, S.P., Guna issued a show cause notice dated 07.12.2010
and petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the
disciplinary authority issued a punishment order dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure P-
3) and punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect
has been imposed and thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal and the same has
been rejected vide order dated 12.10.2011 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter,
petitioner preferred mercy petition, that too has been rejected vide order dated
28.07.2012 (Annexure P-1).
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Presenting Officer has
not been appointed and Inquiry Officer has cross-examined the witnesses and
the petitioner and the Truck Driver or Cleaner have not been identified nor they
have been examined by the prosecution. Amit Sharma, who has taken the photo,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
3 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
has not identified the petitioner and further submitted that said Truck did not
enter in the city after the said incident, but proceeded towards A.B. Road,
therefore, it is submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the Inquiry
Officer overlooked the material part in the statements of Kailash Narayan and
Constable Rajendra Singh.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the charges
levelled against the petitioner have been proved in the enquiry report and the
Inquiry Officer had not cross-examined the witnesses. He had only asked some
questions from the witnesses as well as from the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the punishment order was passed after following the due
procedure of law and a reasoned and speaking order was passed by the
Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the appellate authority also considered each
and every ground raised by the petitioner in the appeal memo and rejected the
appeal.
3.1 Learned counsel for respondents further submits that the Inquiry Officer
conducted a fair enquiry, provided proper opportunity of hearing by following the
principles of natural justice and the petitioner duly participated in the
proceedings, presented his defence, submissions, and also examined the
witnesses before the Inquiry Officer. It is further submitted that the petitioner has
not pointed out any statutory Rule or Act, which was not followed by the Inquiry
Officer. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority rightly imposed the punishment.
The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority passed their orders
after considering the entire record relating to the departmental enquiry. It is
settled law that this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not
empowered to act as an appellate court and the grounds stated in the writ petition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
4 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
are contrary to settled service jurisprudence. Neither any violation of the
principles of natural justice nor any bias is reflected.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The first question for consideration is as to whether the departmental
enquiry would vitiate on account of non appointment of presenting officer or not?
6. The said question is no more res integra. This Court by order dated
25.02.2020 passed in case of Ramnaresh Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.
decided in W.P. No.7634/2013 has held as under :-
“(9) It is next contended by the counsel for the petitioner
that since the defence witnesses were cross-examined by the
Inquiry Officer himself, therefore, the entire Departmental
Enquiry is vitiated. To buttress his contention, the counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Parmal Singh
Tomar vs. State of MP and Others [Writ Petition No. 2918
of 2017], decided on 13/12/2018. The Coordinate Bench of
this Court, after considering the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India
Vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, reported in 2005 (1) LLJ 931,
has observed as under:-
”4. The petitioner placed reliance on the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs.
Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, 2005 (1) LLJ 931 para 16 of
which is relevant to emphasise the extent to which the
Inquiry Officer can ask questions to different stakeholders
in a departmental inquiry and as to when such questioning
can become a legitimate cause for delinquent employees to
the ground of bias on the part of Inquiry Officer. Relevant
para 16 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
We may summarise the principles thus:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
5 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
(i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a
Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the
position of a prosecutor.
(ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority
to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry.
Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not
vitiate the inquiry.
(iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the
truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the
prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the
absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts
any questions to the prosecution witnesses to illicit the
facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee
to cross-examine such witnesses on those clarifications.
(iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular
examination-if-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses
through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to
the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or
cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive
questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the
Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the
inquiry.
(v) As absence of a presenting Officer by itself will
not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognized that the Inquiry
Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit
the truth, the question whether an Inquiry Officer acted as
a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference
to the manner in which the evidence is led in any recorded
in the inquiry.
Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as
an Inquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer
depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations
of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as
illegal and vitiate, the present trend appears to be to
invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple
cases.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
6 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
5. Issue of similar kind was considered by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram
Prakash Gaya Prasad Vs. State of M.P. and others,
2008(4) MPLJ 35 and Ramesh Chand Rathore V. State
of M.P. and others, 2010 (II) MPWN 80, relevant paras
of which are reproduced below:-
11. In the present case, it is evident from a
perusal of the enquiry proceedings that no
Presenting Officer was appointed by the disciplinary
authority. The evidence on behalf of the disciplinary
authority has been presented by the Enquiry Officer,
by conducting a regular examination-if-chief of
prosecution witnesses by taking them through the
prosecution case. The Enquiry Officer has also
conducted in the present case regular cross-
examination of the defence witnesses. The Enquiry
Officer has also conducted the crossexamination of
the delinquent government servant. It is not a case
where the Enquiry Officer in the absence of the
Presenting Officer has simply put clarificatory
questions to the delinquent government servant.
Ramesh Chand Rathore V. State of M.P. And
others:
6. Keeping in view the judgment delivered by this
Court and also keeping in view the record crelating to
Departmental Enquiry Proceedings, it is evident that the
Inquiry Officer has in the present case conducted regular
cross-examination of witness and he has also conducted
the crossexamination of the delinquent government
servant. It is not a case where the Inquiry Officer has
simply asked clarificatory questions to the delinquent
government servant. Meaning thereby, the Inquiry Officer,
has assumed the role of the prosecutor while acting as a
judge in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
7 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
7. The Inquiry Officer is an independent arbiter who
ordinarily is supposed to remain aloof and not involve
himself especially in the process of examination or
crossexamination of any particular witness much less a
defence witness. However, the Inquiry Officer is
authorized to ask question on certain exceptional occasions
where things have to be clarified or where Inquiry Officer
feels that asking of question to a witness would be in the
interest of justice and to ascertain the truth behind the
charges.
7.1 In the instant case, Inquiry Officer has indulged
in the act of cross-examining the defence witness which
reflects his partisan character. The Inquiry Officer herein
gives an impression that he is favourably inclined towards
the prosecution and therefore, became biased against the
defence.” (10) The judgment passed by Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui (supra)
was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India and Others vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, reported
in (2018) 7 SCC 670 and has held as under:-
”34. We fully endorse the principles as
enumerated above, however, the principles have to
be carefully applied in fact situation of a particular
case………………”
(12) Further, the counsel for the petitioner could not point
out as to what prejudice was caused to him if clarificatory
cross-examination was done by the Inquiry Officer.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
cross-examination done by the Inquiry Officer is merely
clarificatory in nature and he has not acted as a Prosecutor and
did not act in any manner as if he was interested in eliciting
evidence to punish the employee.”
7. Even if the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) in the case of Mohd.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
8 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
Naseem Siddiqui (supra) is taken into consideration, even then also Division
Bench of this Court has summarized the principles as under :-
“We may summarise the principles thus:
(i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge
shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a
prosecutor.
(ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to
appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry.
Nonappointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not
vitiate the inquiry.
(iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or
to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution
witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a
Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to
the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter
permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such
witnesses on those clarifications.
(iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-
in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the
prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental
witnesses pregnant with answers, or crossexamines the defence
witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the
prosecution case employee, the Inquiry Officer acts as
prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.
(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not
vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that the Inquiry Officer
can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the
question whether an Inquiry Officer acted as a Presenting
Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in
which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry.
Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an
Inquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer
depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of
bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal
and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
9 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it
may.”
8. Therefore, it is settled in law that non-appointment of Presenting Officer
does not render the departmental enquiry vitiated automatically. It is to be seen in
peculiar fact situation of each case.
9. Perusal of record indicates that Inquiry Officer never over reached in any
manner. He neither put leading questions before the prosecution witnesses nor
interrupted the petitioner (delinquent employee) to disturb the cross-examination.
Even employee’s statement was taken and he was permitted to produce defence
evidence also. In fact, petitioner never raised any point regarding malice or
malafide intention of the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, once Inquiry Officer acted in
just and fair manner giving adequate opportunity of hearing and to lead evidence
to the petitioner and did not manipulate witnesses, then case of the petitioner
goes which is solely based upon non-appointment of Presenting Officer. This
Court holds that in given set of facts, non-appointment of Presenting Officer for
conducting enquiry does not vitiate the departmental enquiry and the enquiry was
carried out in accordance with law.
10. Further, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference by this
Court in departmental matters.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs.
N. Gangraj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 has held as under:
“8. We find that the interference in the order of punishment by the
Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error. The
power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process.
The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court or
on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
10 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
9. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a three-
Judge Bench of this Court has held that the High Court is not a court
of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental
enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine
whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf,
and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and
whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. The Court held
as under : (AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7)
“7. … The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over
the decision of the authorities holding a departmental
enquiry against a public servant : it is concerned to
determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural
justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence,
which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the
enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably
support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of
the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a
petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence
and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.”
10. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996
SCC (L&S) 80], again a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held
that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of
judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority
reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The
court/tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an
appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its
own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under :
(SCC pp. 759-60, paras 12-13)
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision
but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
11 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that
the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is
conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant,
the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the
inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules
of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings
or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction,
power and authority to reach a finding of fact or
conclusion. But that finding must be based on some
evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act
nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply
to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts
that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom,
the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the
delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The
Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not
act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and
to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence.
The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority
held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a
manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in
violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of
inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the
disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the
conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person
would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may
interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould
the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each
case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-
extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the
nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict
proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are
not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of
evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
12 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4
SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364, this Court held at p. 728
that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or
suffers from patent error on the face of the record or
based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be
issued.”
11. In High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC
416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144, this Court held that interference with the
decision of departmental authorities is permitted if such authority
had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice
or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such
enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It was held as under : (SCC p. 423, para 16)
“16. The Division Bench [Shashikant S. Patil v. High
Court of Bombay, 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 97 : (2000) 1
LLN 160] of the High Court seems to have approached
the case as though it was an appeal against the order of
the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High
Court. Interference with the decision of departmental
authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority
had held proceedings in violation of the principles of
natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations
prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of
the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to
the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion
made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly
arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could
have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar
to the above. But we cannot overlook that the
departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary
Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the
facts, if the enquiry has been properly conducted. The
settled legal position is that if there is some legal
evidence on which the findings can be based, then
adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
13 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
12. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya,
(2011) 4 SCC 584:(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721, this Court held that the
courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led
in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another
view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been
fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the
question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the
evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in
departmental enquiries. The Court held as under:(SCC pp. 587-88,
paras 7 & 10)
“7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as
an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that
another view is possible on the material on record. If the
enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the
findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy
of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will
not be grounds for interfering with the findings in
departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not
interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental
enquiries, except where such findings are based on no
evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to
find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting
reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or
finding, on the material on record. The courts will
however interfere with the findings in disciplinary
matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory
regulations have been violated or if the order is found to
be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous
considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India,
(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80, Union of India
v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
1806 and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana,
(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036, High Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
14 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC 416 :
2000 SCC (L&S) 144].)
* * *
10. The fact that the criminal court subsequently
acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of
doubt, will not in any way render a completed
disciplinary proceeding invalid nor affect the validity of
the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The
standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being
different from the standard of proof required in
departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence
may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that
is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an
acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal
proceedings. This is more so when the departmental
proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point
of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings. The
findings by the criminal court will have no effect on
previously concluded domestic enquiry. An employee
who allows the findings in the enquiry and the
punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality
by nonchallenge, cannot after several years, challenge the
decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal
court has acquitted him.”
13. In another judgment reported as Union of India v. P.
Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554, this
Court held that while reappreciating evidence the High Court cannot
act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The
Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not
interfere in the disciplinary proceedings : (SCC p. 617, para 13)
“13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case
the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
15 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear
to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.”
14. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent relies
upon the judgment reported as Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan
Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 335, wherein this
Court held that if the disciplinary authority records a finding that is
not supported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which is
unreasonably arrived at, the writ court could interfere with the
finding of the disciplinary proceedings. We do not find that even on
touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or the High Court could interfere
with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority It is not the
case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The finding
that the respondent is guilty of misconduct has been interfered with
only on the ground that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the
Department. The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a
case of no evidence. The inquiry officer has appreciated the evidence
and returned a finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct.
15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry
officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the
State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been
accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of
judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere
with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if
the courts are the appellate authority. We may notice that the said
judgment has not noticed the larger Bench judgments in State of A.P.
v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 and B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 as
mentioned above. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
16 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
the High Court suffer from patent illegality and thus cannot be
sustained in law.”
12. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs.
Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in (2006) 7 SCC 212 has held a under:
“6. Before we proceed further, we may observe at this stage that it is
unfortunate that the High Court has acted as an Appellate Authority
despite the consistent view taken by this Court that the High Court
and the Tribunal while exercising the judicial review do not act as an
Appellate Authority:
“Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct
errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in
manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of
natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication
on merit by reappreciating the evidence as an Appellate
Authority.” (See Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan
[(2006) 2 SCC 373 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 316], SCC p. 379,
para 11.)
9. It is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence
which had been considered by the inquiry officer, a disciplinary
authority and the Appellate Authority. The finding of the High Court,
on facts, runs to the teeth of the evidence on record.
12. From the facts collected and the report submitted by the inquiry
officer, which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and
the Appellate Authority.
15. In Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 4 SCC 618 : (1972)
2 SCR 218] it is held as under: (SCC p. 623, para 15)
A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The
standard proof required is that of preponderance of
probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the
inference that lender was a person likely to have official
dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable
person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the
High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decisionSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
17 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013based on it. The Letters Patent Bench had the same power
of dealing with all questions, either of fact or of law
arising in the appeal, as the Single Judge of the High
Court. If the enquiry has been properly held the question
of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be
canvassed before the High Court. A finding cannot be
characterised as perverse or unsupported by any relevant
materials, if it was a reasonable inference from proved
facts. (SCR p. 219)
16. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda [(1989) 2 SCC 177 : 1989
SCC (L&S) 303 : (1989) 10 ATC 30] it is held at SCC p. 189, para
27 as under:
“27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters
or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate
jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the
findings of the inquiry officer or competent authority
where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is
appropriate to remember that the power to impose
penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the
competent authority either by an Act of legislature or
rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with
the rules and in accordance with principles of natural
justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is
a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be
imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the
Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for
that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is
mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to
concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere
with the penalty if the conclusion of the inquiry officer or
the competent authority is based on evidence even if
some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the
matter.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
18 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
17. In Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan [(1998) 4 SCC 310 :
1998 SCC (L&S) 1129] this Court held at SCC p. 315, para 12 as
under:
“12. After hearing the rival contentions, we are of the
firm view that all the four charge-sheets which were
enquired into relate to serious misconduct. The
respondent was unable to demonstrate before us how
prejudice was caused to him due to non-supply of the
enquiry authority’s report/findings in the present case. It
needs to be emphasised that in the banking business
absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs
to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular
the bank officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of
the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this
reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court had
committed an error while setting aside the order of
dismissal of the respondent on the ground of prejudice on
account of non-furnishing of the enquiry report/findings
to him.”
18. In Chairman and MD, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar
[(2003) 4 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 468] this Court held at SCC
pp. 376-77, para 14 as under:
“14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of
honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and
the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take
all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge
his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and
to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct
and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari
Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] it is no defence
available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case,
when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very
discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent
upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating withinSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
19 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself a
breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the
employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects
do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.”
19. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC v. Hoti Lal [(2003) 3 SCC
605 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 363] it was pointed out as under: (SCC p.
614, para 10)
“If the charged employee holds a position of trust where
honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of
functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter
leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with
iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or
is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary
capacity, the highest degree of integrity and
trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable.”
20. In Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam [(2005)
3 SCC 241 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 395] this Court at SCC p. 247, para
15 held:
“15. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the
principles of the Evidence Act have no application in a
domestic enquiry.”
13. This Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
cannot act as an Appellate Authority and cannot substitute its own findings by
reversing the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate
Authority. This Court can interfere with the findings of fact, provided they are
based on no evidence.
14. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether the findings
recorded by disciplinary authority or appellate authority are based on no evidence
or not?
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
20 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
15. It is evident from the record that Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry
after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by following
the principles of natural justice. The record also shows that the petitioner
participated in the enquiry proceedings, presented his defence and submissions
and examined witnesses before the Inquiry Officer. There is nothing on record to
indicate that any statutory rule or provision of law was violated by the Inquiry
Officer. It is also evident that the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment
after considering the entire record of the departmental enquiry. Disciplinary
Authority as well as the Appellate Authority passed reasoned orders after
considering the entire material available on record. It is well settled that this
Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, does not act as an appellate authority over the findings recorded in a
departmental enquiry. Nothing on record indicates any violation of the principles
of natural justice or any bias in the conduct of the enquiry.
16. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process.
The power of judicial review conferred upon the Constitutional Court is not that
of an appellate authority. It is concerned with determining whether the inquiry
was conducted by an authority competent in that behalf, in accordance with the
prescribed procedure, and whether the principles of natural justice have been
complied with. The power of judicial review is not an appeal against a decision
but a review of the manner in which the decision has been made. It is meant to
ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the
conclusion reached by the authority is necessarily correct in the eyes of the
Court. Where the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the
authority entrusted with the power to hold the enquiry has the jurisdiction, power,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
21 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
and authority to arrive at findings of fact or conclusions. However, such findings
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act
nor the strict rules regarding proof of facts or admissibility of evidence, as
defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceedings. While exercising the power of
judicial review, the Court or Tribunal does not act as an appellate authority to re-
appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own independent findings. The Court
may interfere with the conclusion or finding and mould the relief, where
warranted, to make it appropriate to the facts of the case. The disciplinary
authority is the sole judge of facts. Where an appeal is provided, the appellate
authority has co-extensive powers to re-appreciate the evidence and examine the
nature or quantum of punishment.
17. In a disciplinary inquiry, strict proof of legal evidence and findings based
thereon are not required. The departmental authority is the sole judge of the facts,
provided that the inquiry has been properly conducted. It is the settled legal
position that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based,
the adequacy or even the reliability of that evidence is not a matter to be
canvassed before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
18. Before parting with the matter, it would be appropriate to mention the
statements of some prosecution witnesses of the departmental enquiry. In the
departmental enquiry, statement of Kailash Narayan Verma (PW-1) has been
taken. Relevant part thereof reads as under:-
“ददिननाक 03.06.10 कको दिदैननक भनासकर गगुनना अकबनार ममें प्रकनानशित
जजिसममे आरक्षक मननीष शिमनार्मा कको भगुलल्लनपगुरना नतरनाहमे पर ट्रक ममें एएंट्रटSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
22 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013ल्लमेतमे हगुयमे ददिखनायना गयना हदै। अखबबार ककी प्रतति ददेखनदे सदे आरक्षक
मननीश शमबार्मा कबा हही फफोटट छपबा हहै।”
19. In the departmental enquiry, statement of Rajendra Singh (PW-2) has been
taken. Relevant part thereof reads as under:-
“जजिसममें आर. क. ४३२ मननीशि शिमनार्मा ककी दडिययूटट भगुलल्लनपगुरना नतरनाहमे
गगुनना ममें ददिननाएंक 27.04.10 कको 12 समे 16 बजिमे ददिननाएंक 09.05.10 कको 08
समे 12 एवएं 16 समे 19 बजिमे तक ददिननाएंक 19.05.10 कको 12 समे 16, 19 समे 22
एवएं 24.05.10 कको 08 समे 12 बजिमे तक ककी पनाइनट दडिययूटट ववतरण
रजजिसटर कमे अनगुसनार अएंदकत हदैना ददिननाएंक 03.06.10 कना दिदैननक भनासकर
गगुनना ममें प्रकनानशित समनाचनार पत्र पढना हदै जजिसमम आर. क; 432 मननीष
शमबार्मा क व ट्रक कबा फफोटट छपबा हहैबा दकस ससनान पर फकोटयू नल्लयना गयना
इसककी मगुझमे जिनानकनारट नहटएं हदैना ममैंनमे पयूवर्मा ममें भनी इसनी आशय कना
प्रनासनमक जिनाएंच कसन ददियना सना जिको ई.एकस.पनी.-06 हदैना”
20. The contention of the petitioner that Inquiry Officer has cross-examined
the witnesses including the petitioner, for this reason the enquiry is vitiated. This
contention is not accepted as the petitioner could not point out as to what
prejudice was caused to him if clarificatory cross-examination was done by the
Inquiry Officer. Accordingly, this Court is of the Considered opinion that the
cross-examination done by the Inquiry Officer is merely clarificatory in nature
and he has not acted as a Prosecutor and did not act in any manner as if he was
interested in eliciting evidence to punish the petitioner.
21. Furthermore, once the findings have been accepted by the disciplinary
authority, the High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot
interfere with the findings of fact by re-appreciating the evidence as if it were
exercising appellate jurisdiction. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on
the merits by re-appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
23 W.P. No. 4334 of 2013
appropriate to remember that the power to impose a penalty upon a delinquent
employee is conferred upon the competent authority either under an Act of the
Legislature or the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. The adequacy of the penalty, unless it is shown to be mala
fide or shockingly disproportionate, is not a matter with which the Court is
ordinarily concerned. The Court also cannot interfere with the penalty where the
conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on
evidence, even if some part of the evidence is found to be irrelevant or
extraneous to the matter.
22. Considering the aforesaid, no case is made out warranting interference.
Petition being sans substratum is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Abhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 8/4/2026
3:39:09 AM
